read_analog

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return aggregation (min/mean/max) and the single vs. multi-sample behavior, but does not explicitly mention non-destructive read-only nature, error conditions, or permissions. The word 'Read' implies safety, but no explicit statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter guidance and return-value rationale. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return structures, but it does summarize the aggregation. It covers purpose, key parameters, and return value. Missing an explicit comparison to monitor_analog, but otherwise complete for a read operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for three of four parameters, giving concrete examples ('Dev1/ai0') and clarifying semantics ('1 = single instantaneous reading'). However, terminal_config is not explained, leaving a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read voltage samples from an analog input channel.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_digital and write_analog.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does and parameter semantics, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like monitor_analog. It implies usage context via 'samples' and 'rate_hz', but no direct comparisons or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.